Was Russiagate intended, not only to distract attention away from the Clinton emaIl issue, but as a political means of addressing what The New York Times, in its August 20, 2016 editorial (published August 21, 2016, called '[t]he toxic effects of Trumpism..."? Consider, please, the present work of special counsel Mueller. Is it not likely that a special counsel would also have been named had Hillary Clinton won the presidency -- to make sure, as David Plouffe tweeted, in June 2016, the destruction of Trump and "his kind." How would such destruction have been accomplished? By means of prosecutions based on material prepared for the purpose by the Clinton administration

Consider, please this reaction from E.J. Dionne, in his Washington Post column, December 15, 2016, to Trump's sarcastic comment hoping that Russia would find the 30,000 missing Clinton emails.

Dionne commented: "By publicly inviting a foreign power to intervene in our election, Trump put himself ahead of the nation's interest in holding an election that would be untainted by foreign meddling."

How much easier it would be to Dionne's bizarre assertion the basis of an indictment of defeated candidate Trump -- with the documents establishing the truth of the matter never to see the light, guarded by the folks who created Russiagate.

In short, LPR has a hunch that the anti-Trump forces are engaged in a desperate attempt to keep the truth about Russiagate hidden.

That, of course, might well serve the aim of a Trump impeachment: insuring that the truth about Russiagate would remain covered up